When does it eventually click? Forum

[MissJenna]

Before I begin, I will say that I just really stepped up my game when it came to studying around August 1st.

I was just working on flaw questions and it's driving me bonkers that I'm at a standstill when it comes to predicting the flaw ahead of time (before even looking at the answer choices) and sometimes even recognizing what the causation is, etc.

When will it click? I just want to know when I'll be able to predict the flaw/or whatever when I'm done reading the stimulus or even while I'm in the middle of reading it??!

I hate diving into the answer choices before I even have anything in mind & getting suckered into something!!!!

[dowu]

Before I begin, I will say that I just really stepped up my game when it came to studying around August 1st.

I was just working on flaw questions and it's driving me bonkers that I'm at a standstill when it comes to predicting the flaw ahead of time (before even looking at the answer choices) and sometimes even recognizing what the causation is, etc.

When will it click? I just want to know when I'll be able to predict the flaw/or whatever when I'm done reading the stimulus or even while I'm in the middle of reading it??!

I hate diving into the answer choices before I even have anything in mind & getting suckered into something!!!!

Keep drilling. It will only click if you know what the most occurring flaws are. You'll begin to see them in the stimulus.

Have you tried the post-it method? Have you tried finding the flaw before looking at the answer choices, no matter how long it takes?

You should probably check out Manhattan's LR book. I really like their "core approach". Basically, you find the conclusion, and then find the support for the conclusion and go from there.

[ccordero]

Have you tried the post-it method?

What's this?

[heebie-jeebies]

Before I begin, I will say that I just really stepped up my game when it came to studying around August 1st.

I was just working on flaw questions and it's driving me bonkers that I'm at a standstill when it comes to predicting the flaw ahead of time (before even looking at the answer choices) and sometimes even recognizing what the causation is, etc.

When will it click? I just want to know when I'll be able to predict the flaw/or whatever when I'm done reading the stimulus or even while I'm in the middle of reading it??!

I hate diving into the answer choices before I even have anything in mind & getting suckered into something!!!!

If you have the PS LRB, review the section on Flaw questions and become intimately familiar with the most common types of flaws that appear. After a while, the flaws will seem to literally jump off the page, and it will be completely obvious. I typically read the stimulus first, and usually know before I get to the stem that it's going to be a flaw question. Also, you should become familiar with the different ways that these flaws are described in answer choices. When you are reviewing the incorrect answer choices, try to visualize what the stimulus would have looked like had it that flaw.

[heebie-jeebies]

Have you tried the post-it method?

What's this?

If you can't figure it out, you post it on TLS.

[dowu]

Have you tried the post-it method?

What's this?

The post-it method is when you cover up all of the answer choices with a post-it note and write your prephrased answer out on that post-it. Once you come up with your answer, remove the post-it, and see if your answer matches any of the answer choices. It helps to get you in the habit of recognizing flaws, assumptions, etc... without looking at the answer choices first.

From another viewpoint, this also helps you to recognize the bullshit answers because you'll know what sort of answers you should be looking for.

[JazzOne]

Have you tried the post-it method?

What's this?

If you can't figure it out, you post it on TLS.

lol

[My Name is Steve]

Have you tried the post-it method?

What's this?

The post-it method is when you cover up all of the answer choices with a post-it note and write your prephrased answer out on that post-it. Once you come up with your answer, remove the post-it, and see if your answer matches any of the answer choices. It helps to get you in the habit of recognizing flaws, assumptions, etc... without looking at the answer choices first.

From another viewpoint, this also helps you to recognize the bullshit answers because you'll know what sort of answers you should be looking for.

This is also a common trick when studying another language to learn new vocabulary and irregular verb conjugations. You paraphrase the foreign sentence into translated, conversational language so it becomes more familiar and useful in speaking to others. When you compare with the textbook translation, you have a loose interpretation of the sentence on the sticky. Paraphrasing aside, I never thought to apply the sticky method to LR questions, but that's a nifty idea. Thanks for that!

[MissJenna]

Before I begin, I will say that I just really stepped up my game when it came to studying around August 1st.

I was just working on flaw questions and it's driving me bonkers that I'm at a standstill when it comes to predicting the flaw ahead of time (before even looking at the answer choices) and sometimes even recognizing what the causation is, etc.

When will it click? I just want to know when I'll be able to predict the flaw/or whatever when I'm done reading the stimulus or even while I'm in the middle of reading it??!

I hate diving into the answer choices before I even have anything in mind & getting suckered into something!!!!

Keep drilling. It will only click if you know what the most occurring flaws are. You'll begin to see them in the stimulus.

Have you tried the post-it method? Have you tried finding the flaw before looking at the answer choices, no matter how long it takes?

You should probably check out Manhattan's LR book. I really like their "core approach". Basically, you find the conclusion, and then find the support for the conclusion and go from there.

I'm currently working thru the Manhattan LR book.

Yeah...I've tried that method. It's okay I guess. But I'm telling u...it sometimes takes forever (I should start keeping track of time) to come up w/a paraphrase. I'm telling u....it's killing me!!

[theprophet89]

Before I begin, I will say that I just really stepped up my game when it came to studying around August 1st.

I was just working on flaw questions and it's driving me bonkers that I'm at a standstill when it comes to predicting the flaw ahead of time (before even looking at the answer choices) and sometimes even recognizing what the causation is, etc.

When will it click? I just want to know when I'll be able to predict the flaw/or whatever when I'm done reading the stimulus or even while I'm in the middle of reading it??!

I hate diving into the answer choices before I even have anything in mind & getting suckered into something!!!!

Keep drilling. It will only click if you know what the most occurring flaws are. You'll begin to see them in the stimulus.

Have you tried the post-it method? Have you tried finding the flaw before looking at the answer choices, no matter how long it takes?

You should probably check out Manhattan's LR book. I really like their "core approach". Basically, you find the conclusion, and then find the support for the conclusion and go from there.

I'm currently working thru the Manhattan LR book.

Yeah...I've tried that method. It's okay I guess. But I'm telling u...it sometimes takes forever (I should start keeping track of time) to come up w/a paraphrase. I'm telling u....it's killing me!!

The prephrase should be instantaneous. You know you're being presented an illogical argument; so why is that the case?

I myself rarely get the actual prephrased answer, but when I see the AC's it becomes apparent which one follows the methodology I used and addresses the appropriate areas of conflict.

[sabanist]

Assuming you're still in undergrad and have ample time before your test date, you can take a critical thinking class. Mine covered all kinds of reasoning flaws, and they have been one of the easiest question types to me because of it.

[bp shinners]

Here are two tricks you can use to spot the flaw if it's just not popping out at you:

1) Use features of the stimulus that suggest certain flaws:
- exclusivity: usually has a very strong conclusion that recommends one course of action, says that a factor is the only factor (primary factor), OR the determination that something must happen/you MUST do something

- sampling: there is a study done in the stimulus

- composition: the conclusion is about a member of a group or about a group

- sufficiency and necessity: there is conditional reasoning in the argument, or it uses words like necessary/enough

- causation: the conclusion is causal

- equivocation: a new term is introduced in the conclusion that we haven’t seen before, or there are two speakers that use the same term in an important (but different) way to their argument

- comparison: there’s a comparison

- attacking the person (ad hominem): you laugh/someone gets called a name

- Absense of evidence: there are two arguments, and the author (second argument) comes to the exact opposite conclusion of the first arguer (or concludes that the arguer must be wrong)

- circular reasoning: you can underline two sentences that say the exact same thing (this is the only time you should pick this answer)

- Percentage v. amount: there’s a conclusion about a number, or about a rate/percent; very often it will be associated with a study

- temporal: you see any language in the stimulus that denotes past/present/future, and there’s a shift

- perception v. reality: there’s any language about beliefs/views; very often associated with a study

- logical force (modality/quantification): the conclusion has a word that denotes logical force (most/some/all/none; should/could/will; might/will)

2) If all else fails, write out the premises and the conclusion. Then, answer this question: "What would a situation be where I could have my premises but not my conclusion?" Yes, it's a very basic and obtuse way of looking at it. However, for some reason, most of my students can come up with a hypothetical that explains the flaw even when they can't spot the flaw itself. If you can create a hypothetical that shows how the argument is invalid, you can usually figure out the assumption (i.e. "The argument is assuming that this hypothetical isn't possible).

[chadbrochill]

Here are two tricks you can use to spot the flaw if it's just not popping out at you:

1) Use features of the stimulus that suggest certain flaws:
- exclusivity: usually has a very strong conclusion that recommends one course of action, says that a factor is the only factor (primary factor), OR the determination that something must happen/you MUST do something

- sampling: there is a study done in the stimulus

- composition: the conclusion is about a member of a group or about a group

- sufficiency and necessity: there is conditional reasoning in the argument, or it uses words like necessary/enough

- causation: the conclusion is causal

- equivocation: a new term is introduced in the conclusion that we haven’t seen before, or there are two speakers that use the same term in an important (but different) way to their argument

- comparison: there’s a comparison

- attacking the person (ad hominem): you laugh/someone gets called a name

- Absense of evidence: there are two arguments, and the author (second argument) comes to the exact opposite conclusion of the first arguer (or concludes that the arguer must be wrong)

- circular reasoning: you can underline two sentences that say the exact same thing (this is the only time you should pick this answer)

- Percentage v. amount: there’s a conclusion about a number, or about a rate/percent; very often it will be associated with a study

- temporal: you see any language in the stimulus that denotes past/present/future, and there’s a shift

- perception v. reality: there’s any language about beliefs/views; very often associated with a study

- logical force (modality/quantification): the conclusion has a word that denotes logical force (most/some/all/none; should/could/will; might/will)

2) If all else fails, write out the premises and the conclusion. Then, answer this question: "What would a situation be where I could have my premises but not my conclusion?" Yes, it's a very basic and obtuse way of looking at it. However, for some reason, most of my students can come up with a hypothetical that explains the flaw even when they can't spot the flaw itself. If you can create a hypothetical that shows how the argument is invalid, you can usually figure out the assumption (i.e. "The argument is assuming that this hypothetical isn't possible).

Thank you shinners this list is very helpful. I have a question about more recent tests: they've started to incorporate more rare flaws and when I see something different from the usual flaws, I just register it as "bad argument" and have a hard time distinguishing between answer choices.

An example would be PT61 S2 Q8, a strawman argument but at the time, it just seemed like they were talking about different things, making A & B both attractive in the moment.

Any tips for these? Should I start preparing for a wider array of flaws just incase? Thanks in advance

[bp shinners]

An example would be PT61 S2 Q8, a strawman argument but at the time, it just seemed like they were talking about different things, making A & B both attractive in the moment.

While possibly a little more common on more recent tests (though I don't know if the numbers actually back that up - I think they're just masking the normal flaws in more creative ways), I wouldn't worry about expanding your flaw lexicon. Even if it doesn't fall under a category, you can still usually phrase it as a unwarranted assumption.

In that question, they're talking different things, like you said. Marcia is saying that there are vegetarian diets that are healthy for vegetarians. Theodora starts going on about how vegetarian diets hurt people in the meat industry.

A sums that up perfectly - M claimed that not all veggie diets lead to nutritional deficiencies, talking about the people eating them. T first off overestimates the scope of her argument (M says 'not all') and then goes even further by examining the impact if most people become vegetarians. Neither is what M's talking about.

B says that it ignores the research of M's claim. It doesn't do that at all - T never claims that a veggie can't lead a healthy lifestyle (which is what the research claims). T claims that those veggies, while pigging out on tofu and seitan, are driving other people to hunger. She doesn't ignore the results (which would involve her claiming that you can't possibly be healthy nutritionally while being a vegetarian); she talks about a different group (which wasn't studied, and thus the research isn't relevant). Not talking about something that isn't relevant isn't the same thing as ignoring it.